[insert joke about Jericho here]
But I’m at least glad this Pope is standing up to this in the only realistic way he can.
Nailed it. Jericho was supposed to be the first step in annihilating the occupants of the “promised land”. As I recall, there are Jewish prophets who claimed the various setbacks were due to the incomplete genocide.
Netanyahu thinks he’s finishing that work.
I love these interactions because they’re just so over the top it’s ridiculous.
The Pope says the most mild of things and the admin go bonkers.
It’s always wild to me when adult human beings without any obvious brain damage start talking about what a made up deity may or may not be in favor of.
Agreed, but it does make sense from an evolutionary/anthropological perspective. The thing to keep in mind is: it’s perfectly rational for a person to act irrationally if it improves their survivability.
If your king declares that the country is now Catholic, and anyone who believes otherwise will be executed, then the people who survive are gonna be devout Catholics.
Rational Irrationality is real.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus_vult
Robert the Monk, who re-wrote the Gesta Francorum c. 1120, added an account of the speech of Pope Urban II at the Council of Clermont in 1095, of which he was an eyewitness. The speech climaxes in Urban’s call for orthodoxy, reform, and submission to the Church. Robert records that the pope asked Western Christians, poor and rich, to come to the aid of the Greeks in the East:
When Pope Urban had said these and very many similar things in his urbane discourse, he so influenced to one purpose the desires of all who were present, that they cried out, ‘It is the will of God! It is the will of God!’ When the venerable Roman pontiff heard that, with eyes uplifted to heaven he gave thanks to God and, with his hand commanding silence, said: Most beloved brethren, today is manifest in you what the Lord says in the Gospel, “Where two or three are gathered together in my name there am I in the midst of them.” Unless the Lord God had been present in your spirits, all of you would not have uttered the same cry. For, although the cry issued from numerous mouths, yet the origin of the cry was one. Therefore I say to you that God, who implanted this in your breasts, has drawn it forth from you. Let this then be your war-cry in combats, because this word is given to you by God. When an armed attack is made upon the enemy, let this one cry be raised by all the soldiers of God: It is the will of God! It is the will of God![18]
I’m not saying that I approve of Hegseth’s deus vult tattoo, but I would point out that it’s quoting one of your predecessors.
Apply the same standard to the enslavers that you guys call “founding fathers” any time a US politician makes some lofty speech.
I don’t quite get the predecessor argument. It’s pretty common knowledge that the church does not wear a white shirt, but why would you judge the modern Pope by the things a Pope a thousand years ago has said? Like, these are not the same worlds anymore. They didn’t even have the printing press back then.
because supposedly they’re all the final interpertor of an omnipotent gods will…every discrepancy/flipflop across time hust highlights the absurdity of this mass delusion
For those that believe there is an all powerful being who created everything and knows everything wouldn’t every single war be because this entity wanted it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil
The problem of evil, also known as the problem of suffering, is the philosophical question of how to reconcile the existence of evil and suffering with the notion of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient God.[1][2][3][4]
I guess the beat response I’ve received is God knows every single choice that will be presented to every single person in every single moment. God granted us free will, the knowledge of what’s right and wrong and a holy text. After that, everything is up to us
such lazy writing
It’s my understanding that all mainstream Christians believe that God is omniscient, and therefore knows the future in complete detail, because if he didn’t know today what your were going to have for lunch tomorrow, that would be something that he didn’t know, and therefore a limit to his omniscience.
BUt wE liFe iN a fALlEn wOrLd
God hates you, MAGA. And so do we.
Something something crusades
Go ahead, tell us how you really feel about the crusades. I’m not saying I disagree, but I think the church he’s leading still has a lot of reconciliation to do with its past. No better time to start than now. They need to start being honest with themselves before anyone else should bother to take them seriously.
Forget the crusades, I want to see them reconcile with child abuse and smuggling fascists through the WW2 Ratlines.
Looks like the Vatican is gonna need a regime change.
No, God blesses pedophiles instead. That’s why they’re in churches and the Vatican.
Your predecessor blessed the holocaust, you hypocritical piece of shit.
Historically speaking that’s a cartoonish thing to say: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Pius_XII_and_the_Holocaust
So the predecessor was wrong
deleted by creator
edit: I should have been much nicer in sharing knowledge. Do not be like me.
- the Roman pontiff (the pope alone or with the College of Bishops)
2 speaks ex cathedra – that is, when (in the discharge of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, and by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority) he defines a doctrine:
3 concerning faith or morals, and
4 to be held by the whole Church.
that shit is so rare, it’s only ever been done twice. I swear the people who are supercilious about religion know just as much as most people in the religion. I.e. not a lot.
Edit: I was wrong
How is the Pope making official statements (“defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals” pretty much sums up all pontifical statements that aren’t a direct response to world events) concerning faith/morals which is destined to catholics anything “rare”?
BTW you paraphrased in a way that makes it less legible (IMO), here is the original:
[…] when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals
Source (Vatican 4th session, chapter 4)
We don’t have the official statements made by Urban II When he called for a crusade, I’d argue it’s a bit of a stretch to say that he didn’t bless that war to some degree, but if you someone wants to argue otherwise I guess we’d have to agree to disagree.
On the other hand, pope Leo made this statement:
God does not bless any conflict. Anyone who is a disciple of Christ, the Prince of Peace, is never on the side of those who once wielded the sword and today drop bombs
- He is Is the Roman Pontiff, and there is no indication that he’s making this statement outside this role
- He has made a declaration which can be qualified as a doctrine
- “a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief” Merriam Webster
- That point can be argued though, “doctrine” is a weird word.
- Which is applicable to the whole church (“Anyone who is a disciple of Christ”)
Edit: I am way too rude here
when was the last time a pope spoke ex cathedra. just answer that question and we can resolve this asinine bullshit.
After digging I’ll concede the point.
My misunderstanding was on the “he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church”, specifically “defines”, which is not simply, as I understood it, “makes a statement concerning X”
To be fair to you, I could have been nicer. I have been constantly looked over in my life and career and not given credence to my thoughts, which has resulted into too much bitterness.
I will also concede that the pope when speaking regularly can be considered infallible until a later pope, or the councils decide otherwise.
I apolgozie for my candor. It was unbecoming and shameful and I hope you will forgive the unkindness I have paid you. Blessings upon you and your family and I wish only the best for you and your kin.
Edit: Started off strong, then immediately went into asshole mode. Bad me.
Blessings and speaking infallibly are two very separate things. Again, it’s only ever been done twice. You’re including extraneous information that does not help your case, because you are trying to sound smarter than you really are and not arguing within the confines of the argument. Leo is NOT speaking infallibly when he says no war is blessed. You have to go through a very long process to speak infallibly. That’s why Immaculate Conception and Assumption are the only ones.
You’re trying to recontextualize the rules, so that they fit your argument. Are you Western Christian perhaps?
You be ignorant, child.
edit: not blessings, but rather just speaking on what the Lord blesses is not considered infallible.
Edit: I was wrong
Speaking infallibly can be done a number of ways, including the one which I literally quoted, from the Vatican council. This is not external information, this is catholic doctrine. You can find it on the official Vatican website, though only in Latin: https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/i-vatican-council/documents/vat-i_const_18700718_pastor-aeternus_la.html
It is possible to establish doctrines a number of ways, including through long collegial processes as you describe. Those are simply not the only ways, and an ex-cathedra declaration is the prerogative of the pontiff alone.
What specific point are you disagreeing on with me here? How is the declaration from Pope Leo not ex-cathedra per Vatican I?
Edit: I am a supercilious fool.
Man, if only I studied Latin for religious studies. Oh wait! I did! Speaking with Papal Infallibility is only done in specific vircumstances. Anything else can be considered possibly infallible. Fuck, y’all are dumb.
Edit: It’s the same fucking reason Michael Scott isn’t bankrupt when he says, “I declare bankruptcy” there’s a process you have to go through to speak from the chair. Same reason it hasn’t been done since 1950. You clearly know how to read and research, so just do it.
Edit: The church has rejected multiple declarations from Popes over the years. It means nothing!
So the predecessor says ABC, and the current pope says no, are they both right and wrong?
Well the pope just needs to not contradict their predecessors for this to hold. We’re (me included) snarking because Popes did materially support & call for wars, but (recorded) official statements have generally been anti-war.
Although funnily enough, unlike their roman counterpart, orthodox / coptic patriarchs always refused to call for holy wars, because:
- As a matter of principle it didn’t really fit
- Giving Christian support for wars made those wars (which were usually inevitable anyway) a Christian vs. non-Christian matter, meaning the church would die when it could survive under non-Christian management
- And Muslims invading the eastern roman empire tended to be pretty tolerant & the taxes imposed by Muslims (including the Jizya) sometimes were even lower than those they paid under byzantine rule
- And they also really did not care about the canon of the catholic churches (coptic, orthodox, roman), meaning heretics who would be burned or need to reform in Christian lands could live normally under Muslim rule
